| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
|
|
- print test pattern instead of pattern number,
- show pattern as stored in memory,
- use proper priority flags,
- consistent use of u64 throughout the code
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
|
|
Impact: code cleanup
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
|
|
Impact: code cleanup
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
|
|
available patterns
Impact: fix unexpected behaviour when pattern number is out of range
Current implementation provides 4 patterns for memtest. The code doesn't
check whether the memtest parameter value exceeds the maximum pattern number.
Instead the memtest code pretends to test with non-existing patterns, e.g.
when booting with memtest=10 I've observed the following
...
early_memtest: pattern num 10
0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 0
...
0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 1
...
0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 2
...
0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 3
...
0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 4
...
0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 5
...
0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 6
...
0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 7
...
0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 8
...
0000001000 - 0000006000 pattern 9
...
But in fact Linux didn't test anything for patterns > 4 as the default
case in memtest() is to leave the function.
I suggest to use the memtest parameter as the number of tests to be
performed and to re-iterate over all existing patterns.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
|
|
Hi all,
Wrong usage of 2nd parameter in reserve_early call.
66/75: reserve_early(start_bad, last_bad - start_bad, "BAD RAM");
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The correct way is to use 'end' address and not 'size'.
As a bonus a fix to the printk format.
Signed-off-by: Daniele Calore <orkaan@orkaan.org>
Acked-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
|
|
it's separate functionality that deserves its own file.
This also prepares 32-bit memtest support.
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
|
